Re: [Bug 11716] Identity constraints: grammatical typo

On Jan 12, 2011, at 2:29 AM, Michael Kay wrote:

> 
>> Thanks for the clarification.  I think 'exactly' does no work in the sentence,
>> so I don't think it's a loss.  (As a test:  what would a node set look like if it
>> had inexactly one node?)
> In 1.0 the text was "a node-set with exactly one member, which must have a simple type. "
> 
> In 1.1 the text is "that only contains ˇskippedˇ nodes and at most one node whose ˇgoverningˇ type definition is either a simple type definition or a complex type definition with {variety} simple.

We seem to be involved in a comedy of errors here.  

The original bug report referred to clause 3.  

Henry added a comment saying he thought there were unmotivated changes 
and quoted as an example some text involving the replacement of "node set"
with "node sequence" which I could not find in clause 3 but did eventually 
locate in clause 4.

I replied (w.r.t. clause 4) that the change was motivated by the change
in terminology between XPath 1.0 and 2.0; Henry clarified that that wasn't
what he considered unmotivated, but the loss of the word "exactly".  I
assume that he was, like me, talking about clause 4.  

My response (which you quote above) was  certainly about clause 4, 
not clause 3 (which you also quote).

In clause 3, the loss of 'exactly' has a different motivation:  the substitution
is not "a node set with exactly one member, which must ..." for "a sequence 
... that ... contains at most one node ...", but from

  either an empty node-set or a node-set with exactly one member, which must 

to the new formulation.  

Your new formulation may be an improvement; I need to spend a quiet hour or
two trying to understand the 1.0 text and the 1.1 status quo text before I am
ready to think about change proposals.

-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 16:04:06 UTC